and not secret under the classifications of this country. documents. e secret >> secret and top secret documents. o you accept that information contained personal information hat could to the identity even of the sexual orientation of gchq.ns working within >> the sexual orientation is new to me. f you could explain how we've done that, that's interesting. >> in part of your own still er, which is available on-line. because you refer to the fact gchq has its own pride group for staff. i suggest to you that the 58,000ontained within the documents also contained data that allowed the paper to report that information, it's therefore information now that's not any the laws tected under of this country and that general

individual-- that jeopardizes those individuals, does it not? > there are gay members of gchq. is that a surprise? >> it's not amusing. be outed by you and your newspaper. what about the fact that -- hold on a second. >> what about the fact -- >> you're either going to answer the question or not. on. ld >> if he could have the opportunity of answering him, on.se, do, go >> the mention of the existence group within gchq, if website, you can find the same information there. fail to see how that outs anyone. >> you said you know about the website, it's not news to you. it was in your newspaper. what about the fact that gchq organized trips to disneyland in paris. that's been printed in your newspaper. oes that mean that -- if you

knew that, information including the family details of members of also within the 58,000 documents the security of which jeopardized?iously >> again, your reference has me. the fact that -- > do you accept these files contain methods of tracking cybercriminals like pedophiles and hackers? >> well, the only story that has that dentified to us esembles that description is the story about todd, and i would welcome the opportunity to talk about that. >> no, i rather you didn't, actually. don't see the need to further publicize that information. what about the location of safe houses and safe locations, locations? 58,000 documents that contained that information? -- you're i could just referring to tall.

about tall because e're in danger of having an analog discussion of the digital age. for anyone out tor who's interested in this would the done nothing for guardian not available on the website. there's nothing that "the published that is ndangering people in the way we're talking about them. >> it's not what you published, t's about what you communicated. that's what amounts or can amount to a criminal offense. the ave caused communication of secret documents. secret and things as top secret in the country for a reason, not to hide them from to hide them but from those that guide us. but you communicated those documents. you knew about the enigma code in world war ii, would you have transmitted that nazis?tion to the >> that's a well worn red herring if you don't mind me

so, i think most journalists can make a distinction between the time talking about or the travel of trips this, is well dealt terial that's been with by the supreme court and that you learned in -- when you your nctj course. i can make that distinction, thank you. of ave members of the board "the guardian" newspaper said to you or conceded to you that the in thishave been broken matter? >> no. >> have you been told by members the guardian f newspaper that your job is on the line? under some ou're misapprehension? >> i'm asking a question. guardian rd of the newspaper, if you understood the structure of the guardian has no editors. on over the >> did the guardian. >> i think it meets your final question. i think it's less than six minutes. >> mr. ellis, order.

chairing this meeting. this is your final question. is not a -- i'm asking you some questions that i think you should answer. the guardian pay for flights -- to courier secret funds? > we paid for mr. miranda's flights, which was -- he feels acting as intermediary between -- the u did pay for flightings. so have they been accounted for as a business expense? flights? is the uk taxpayer funding a tax of stolenthe transfer funds? be familiar with the tax laws. i think we'll move on to the next -- don't see -- >> order, mr. ellis. perhaps we must go to the the 1930s.n asking you questions.

were you surprised at the amount of intelligence gathering which revealed as a result of what snowden gave to your newspaper media outlets? >> i think many people are the amount of -- > gave yourself, if i may interrupt, were you -- >> i was staggered. think we all knew that the intelligence agencies collected data.of and people are still trying to make out as though this data -- nothing has changed in the last 15 years since the laws were passed with a lot of analog laws that deal with the digital world. i think the last serious law passed about as 2000, athis material was time when facebook hasn't been doing d, when google was the initial funding round. and we're pretending that the

really crocodile clips on copper wires are with the e to deal collection of maybe 3 billion metadata around those in a day. so, yes, there's a staggering mount of information being collected which has surprised even those who passed the laws that apparently -- apparently, i say, authorize the collection. >> would you be right to say hat since the reports have occurred, american american s -- senior politicians in congress, some, others e, denounce and have expressed surprise that been own country has involved in such intelligence extent g on the sort of of scale that snowden has revealed? are most the people disturbed by the revelation of who passed e people the laws. the -- are being used to justify

it. so congressman sensenbrenner, republican ht-wing who drafted and passed the atriot act, he was the first person out of the stocks to say he was appalled that the patriot was being drafted used to -- to justify what he to come as un-american, to your question, mr. chairman, about patriotism. appalled. he said this is not what i act.ded by the patriot there are currently three bills in congress which are being to limit. >> arising from snowden. >> arising from snowden. snowden through the newspapers and through our publications that are being used limit the -- these cross party bills to limit what's going on. o you're quite right to say that the people have been extremely surprised of what's been going on. at least, there is meaningful oversight where

to limit now trying and place some limits on that. >> would you say for our own it's changed the course of debate, whether the oversight subject, of and a course, of the recent public the intelligence and security commission. we're all impressed by the robust questioning that took place there at the time. but do you feel that it has changed the course of this debate?ar half our parliament is stage to dealthis with the bout of intelligence many, many volving people who are not public figures? > i think it's absolutely impacted on that debate. i think there are many

appalled arians were to learn that stuff they were already ed to pass was been done and the information wasn't shared with them at the time. comes to the heart of parliamentary oversight and what parliamentary oversight is remotely adequate moment, whether it's resourceful enough or if they have the technological expertise. i would like to quote one little section from them. we now spent about ten minutes this committee discussing leaks that didn't happen. the catastrophic leak that did dealt with the isc with the following exchange, chairman, can we assume you're with your ussions american colleagues about the hundreds of thousands of people who appear to have access to your information. all three of us are involved in those discussions. thank you very much. question that's been asked in parliament about he loss of 58,000 documents

through a data sharing scheme through gtsq and nsa. the amount of oversight, the nowet for oversight is even is 1.3 million pounds, supposedly a secret, think,tally, which is, i that a third of the amount he spends on car parts. the e prime minister in chamber said that he wants to to thatreement or words ffect with the guard -- guardian. if the guardian is not willing to see the point of view from authorities, then actions may be taken. can i ask you this question, how you feel -- sorry? >> final question. >> yes. how far do you feel that there to the newspaper if ou continue to publish revelations from snowden?

is he under pressure? things have happened in this country that would be inconceivable in europe and america.europe and in they include piracy. they include a senior official editor to say there's been enough debate now. hey include asking for the destruction of our disks. they include and he's calling prosecute.ice to so there are things that are with --vable in america under the first -- >> are you under pressure yourself. do you feel this pressure from government? >> i feel that some of this activity has been designed to government, yes. >> thank you, we must move on. efore we do, are you telling this committee it's a result of parliament's failure to oversee the ecurity services and failure to have the necessary expertise and the failure to that'ssufficient budget, why you were obliged to publish because had you not done so,

found out d have about this? >> the only way any of this information has come into the public domain is through the press. so all of these things -- >> we should look at our structures better? >> we should and america is -- diane feinstein who is the equivalent in america who nsa for supporting the about three months, the merkel elephone call happens, they didn't know about that. it'sshe said at that point, abundantly clear that a total of all of the programs are necessary. he oversight committee saying we have no idea of what's going on. >> with respect to our inquiry, would be good if this committee looked at the trufrs of both sides, as part of the counterterrorism structure? >> absolutely. >> you wrote in your letter of 7th of november to julianne

mith that the guardian hadn't published the names or identifying information for staff of our intelligence agencies. and i think for the chair earlier, you added that you have of that ost control information. can i -- can i clarify that? n your response to this earlier, did you say that you had communicated that nformation to the new york times? >> at the danger of repeating myself, we gave the material to times at the same time roughly the same time as we secretary that we were doing that and giving the secretary the name of the new times and had to contact her. > and you referred earlier to the material for "the washington post" not under your control, "the terial shared with new york times," did that remain under your control. >> the material, yes, the was given to "the washington post" by edward nowden himself, a journalist called butler gelman. the material we have in "the new

the joint is in control of myself and of the new york times. >> when you say you haven't lost of the data, does that appearance when the ata was with fedex which i understand was used to transfer that information? data -- we lost no control of no data. no names have leaked. previously you used federal express. period 't refer to the while whatever i was spending was with federal express. in a period that was under my control. is that what you are saying? >> we haven't lost control of it. so the reporting of the fedex ransmission was greatly exaggerated. it was reported as tens of thousands of documents, mi-5 and mi-6 spies, that was not the case. -- it material relating was a small amount of material that was o one story

incrypted to military grade encryption. it was sent safely, arrived a leak.didn't have >> you refer earlier to the commenced having with the guardian and "the owned by green greenwold. 53,000 files all began with each of those four places? >> could you repeat the question? before you said guardian -- hen i assume green world and germany, you were saying the data information had started in places.those four i'm wondering, are you saying 53,000 files he have started in each of those places? i don't think we know exactly who has what. i think probably the only person who has that is edward snowden. >> okay.

information which that d at the guardian glen greenwald did not until you transferred it to him. exact answerow the to that. he -- i don't know what what -- who got what in the initial -- allhy did the guardian have of this information to glen greenwald if he already had it? >> well, sometimes -- i don't ant to get too drawn into the methodology of how we've worked. communicated this information? ly. 'm not entire ly >> i cannot be entirely sure green wald had separately from us, what was created in different ways, what ways -- what he has on us or not. the public m on

record say he does have complete sets but i don't know that to be true. >> has he said in the public files -- some files relating to gchq that the shared with the new york times were a set of guardian that only the had? >> i don't want to repeat myself too much. -- i know mr. green gchq material that he has that was given to him directly from mr. snowden. tell you exactly what e gave him that he didn't have already. >> if you choose not to answer this question, but do you consider -- do you have on the identities of staff for the intelligence jurisdiction f contrary to the terrorism act? >> i think i answered that. clear, atnswer was not least not to me. >> i'll try to repeat myself

clearly. it's been known to the government, apparent to the many months.r that the material that mr. leaked included a good many documents that had names of for bothpeople working the nsa and gchq. as i say, aisle say it again, i told the government in june -- that we were sharing this with the new york times. you accept communicates -- >> they work in new york, yes. >> okay. >> one of the reasons for that, i brought this book along with would be somebody who familiar with this the people '80s, the e mid secretary travelling to ustralia to try to suppress this book that was written by a former mi-5 agent.

the ridiculous sight of a british agency trying to stop publication of something that had been published in australia. in my mind y much situation we lous would be in if the guardian was the only paper in the world not publish material that was being published in reno or germany or anywhere around the world. >> final question. committed a federal offense there. in theconsider that it's direct interest for the cps to prosecute him or should that be with in the authorities in the normal way. >> i think it depends on your a free press, really. in america, the attorney general came out in the last two weeks and said on what he far, he had no intention to prosecute. he's gone further.

said under his watch as attorney general of the u.s., he journalist ute any doing their duty journalistically. in new york, in the last month, debated the general counsel -- nsa, al counsel of the stewart baker. he said he makes the distinction between what snowden did and what journalists did. in the hands of journalists, that's protected aterial and the readingle of our own dpp and the guidelines processlaid down in the is that public interest will weigh very carefully and highly any deliberation he takes. greenwald making a distinction between what he was that the and said guardian was doing which was that the distribution would trafficking across international borders, that information.

>> we're sharing that in the new york times in order to stimulate debate which presidents and legislatures around the world think vital. >> thank you. clarify, is there a current police investigation into the guardian? >> i don't know. communicated with you or interviewed or asked you any questions about this from metropolitan police? have seen scotland yard say that they are holding an investigation into the matters. general no one told us whether that includes the guardian or not. few -- a few records and for public record, we -- the committee has decided andrew parker, the head next 5 in open session year. hopefully -- >> do you have advanced notice we're asking ns you today?

>> i wasn't, i was told that general areas of concern. to recall stunned having an open meeting, all of he intelligence and security meeting with their carefully manicured questions and answers, and to a committee that is accused of being a poodle to the -- many governments, including the cheerleaders for the iraq war. think this raises the question that the two -- the provided by that committee is inadequate and we reform? said, lots of people, including former chairs said we relook it up and he look f said he wants to into his own committee and get an o i hope this will be opportunity for people to talk about how oversight could be

there's no ause question that it should be. >> the united kingdom overnment's reaction to this story has been very different rom any other government and the united nations special -- government, his response is, i quote, unacceptable in a new ratic society and the york times said the uk overnment is challenging the idea of a free inquisitive press. is that true? >> i think what's going on in the united kingdom in the last months has dismaid many couldn't care about free speech and a free press, ngos, two un in ial repertories, people europe, and many editors around the world. a 29-year-old t and 800,000 people who like to

that ourmation suggest potential enemies have access to too? witness in the statement that they've been working on that assumption since disappearede snowden with the material. shocked by at all the revelations of the intense allies by e of our this country in places like the g-20 and so on? nature -- the question of fact blic interest -- the that president obama effectively country ncede that his merkel, no gging mr. denial from australia they were intercepting the phone calls of -- indonesia and his wife.

and that led senator feinstein to say she had to review all of of the intelligence committee. because, again, this was going on without knowledge. you'll remember, either the united states came out and will stop bugging these gatherings of the imf or of the d bank, all things that had been bugging the european parliament, we don't know. was some specific organization rganizations all of that devoted not to espionage, but to peacemaking.ing and set up after the second world war, the united states has come won't be id, we bugging them anymore, which, to me, is an implicit to the were. n that they >> do you think the reaction got them into the list to do with security and more to do with the fact that we would traditionally secretive?

been committee we had talking about earlier had just published the minutes of the meeting in november. press a meeting of the side and the official side. and the vice chairman of that ody said it was important to publish routine embarrassment for the security. by the the material guardian fell into the former category. a lot of this stuff is it's come ng because into the public domain rather than threatening the national security. performedou agree you a very important public service legislators? difficult question, i know. >> there's no doubt in my mind. again.ay this it's not blowing my own trumpet. >> please, do. >> well -- it's not done in that spirit. and this has been a coalition of newspapers, including newspapers

europe -- this is material -- if the f-evident, president of the united states calls a review of everything to intelligence, and that information only came to the three domain in newspapers, then it is self-evident, is it not, that have done something which oversight failed to do? hat will be true of this country and the united states. >> mr. quinn? sir, i'm understanding some etiquette. when you come into possession of documents of this nature, which ar clear clearly is a big story for you, very so contained sensitive national security material, how do you go about you can publish and publish? can't >> i don't know an editor in the

orld who doesn't agonize about these kinds of decisions in a way that you would expect. we touched on that earlier. patriots could care about. >> to be more specific, how in this case could you go about it, terms of this specific process. >> i discussed this with of usgues who are -- some are experienced colleagues in this kind aling with of material. and it's important to know that months, in the last six there have been more than 100 -- with with officials the official side of things. in america, that's been with the hite house, with the director of national intelligence, with he fbi, with the nsa, with the national security council, and with the pentagon. this country it's included downing street, the cabinet security e national advisor, gchq themselves, and dinas committee. we've consulted more than 100

times with the agencies in order be aware of their concerns before we published them. so i suppose my question is, have you gone through all of 53,000 documents? and have some been excluded from publication? will they not be appearing. have others been put in the yes, publication? >> i think -- in terms of ublishing documents, i think we've published 26. >> i'm referring to the ones yet been. not >> we did a few more pages of ocuments that have been redacted. publishnot expect us to a huge amount of more. 26 over six months. the ones that have been communicated to the united states. because i understand some of hose, the names have been redacted and some of them haven't. how did you go about deciding names to redact and which not -- the guardian ear,

has not used any names. in the rare occasion where we've used individual slides from documents which had names on them, we absolutely redacted those. it's been said that the guardian used names, we didn't use names. made it clear that no names were used. >> nevertheless -- asked here, on i where you communicated the united s through the states and in some cases in the ocuments, you did redact the names. other cases, you didn't. how did you decide? >> you're sorry. i'm sorry. was the case. you haven't redacted any names? >> we have not used any names. you communicated the documents to other papers which you said -- >> before transmission? yes. you're quite right. >> so were you sensitive? is she right about? i'm confused. is she right of sending names or redacting names.

> at the risk of repeating myself, there were names in the documents. the documents have been shared with the new york times. did you redact the names before you sent them. you sent the names as they were country. >> the new york editor has not used any names either. > did you have an agreement before you sent the documents that -- we did. >> you did. what about "the washington post." > leaked material directly by edward snowden. >> but you're working with them, i understand. with the ot working washington pose. >> not with them at all. working her one we're repubu -- erica is republica. extremely experienced. >> did you send documents to him. a small number of documents. he has access, again, it's open

cabinet , i gave the on -- the cabinet secretary his name too. >> all right, thank you. >> thank you. come back with a quick supplement. names. e >> just why you didn't redact hose names before sharing with the new york times? >> there were 58,000 documents. >> so the public interest defense is not the journalism, but that you didn't have the don't want to spend the resources going through them before sharing them? direct -- there was a direct -- there were conversations with the cabinet me to think ch led that it was wise to share this material. >> thank you. ceremony that took place in your basement when the secret by yourself, how many people were there? the gchq.ere two from i think two or three from the guardian. you'll just break up the hard disks and the lap tops, is

that right? it's harder to break up -- computer than you think. i think they have a a giant food food mixers like in which you can drop the computer. >> so it was brought to the basement -- with black & decker. >> and was there any point in hat exercise if you have the documents any way and you're going to publish them? food mixer thing? serious the -- the point is this -- and i it goes back to spy catcher. clear withcompletely the cabinet secretary that there were copies elsewhere. right. >> and that the destruction of these computers was not going to reporting. i think -- >> they went ahead and brought he food mixer and -- >> we did it with our black & instructions.ir i think that -- i would say, the a hard choice for

government. i think they were balancing a free press with security. understand the nature of it, think, the t was, i alternatives to having newspapers, you can criminalize try apers all you like and to take them out of this, the next leak, the next edward nowden, the next chelsea manning, weren't going to newspapers. ceremony, it was a public relations exercise in the end. wouldn't say that, it was -- it was -- the aim was to to have a ation and dialogue of a sort that we were robbins' witness statement makes a reason they didn't go for an injunction felt that we were irresponsibly. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> from what you said this afternoon, is it the case that you say that what you publish is

newspaper published would not any caused any harm to personnel, nor to waste any intelligent operation in the issues? >> i don't know because no come to me andas said, "this is the specific harm that you've done." seen lots of people who have dealt with the security agencies. the former lord chancellor. office ur former home ministers, patty ashtown who was former royal marine. i've seen many people who are serious figures who have dealt agencies who said one should always treat the claims of national security with proper skepticism. but i think that is a proper thing. story in k the only which any member of parliament has directly referred to is the the so-callede -- deep internet, which i'm happy

o talk about if anybody is interested. ben d second question is, merson who is the u.n. special repertoire on counterterrorism going to look re at the whole information u.s. and the he uk. he's going to summarize it. he said it's the role of the to hold the government to account and some of the questions from the torym.p. that regarded the investigation and he was on the newspapers tabloid joining that. are you welcoming the u.n. into this issue issue of he whole gathering all of this information and the extent of it? >> absolutely. and tortured debate about levinson. and during that debate, we heard from all ssurances three party leaders that the --

hat the politicians would not interfere in the press. me at the very in t hurdle, parliament is danger of falling in that. earlier the --ld the general counsel of the nsa, else inially a friend of all journalists, he's saying, of guy course, we didn't want this stuff in the public domain. perfectly understood why intelligence agencies want to keep all of this stuff secret. it is in the public, once it is in the hands of the says, the nsa guy press must be protected. wonderful thing about america and i think it's a lesson which we're still country. in this >> and i many final question is, in relation to the fact that has been publishing your newspaper and others have

the ssed at times, i know chair has eluded to this about the fact that there is a extent of out the parliamentary oversight of the working of the security agencies. just ask -- i know again parliament can make its own but do you have some suggestion as to how to a ossible way that parliament can, in fact, improve or have ore oversight on what the security agent needs to do. has to, i think somebody hold a rein between conflicting depabat debates. security is in great public interest, no one is that.dicting there's a public interest in privacy and the economic health tech companies, the economic basis of the -- of the digital economy in this country. seen the figure of 36 billion is the likely damage to and uk companies because people are not going to trust

on the basis of the stories that have come into the domain. so i think oversight has to include people who make -- who advocate. privacy you need somebody external who as the technical knowledge which i doubt many members of that committee have. $1.3 million., kinds hink there are all of questions and parliamentarians have started to ask whether it's right or whether it's a full select committee of the full house, right that the chair should be a former person who has dealings with the committees and responsibility for them. have enough hey resource and so on and so forth. o i think -- i'm hearing very helpful suggestions and interesting suggestions about reformed as might be a result of newspaper coverage. >> thank you.

>> thank you. in austin? >> thank you. point what's this sort of of principle? that bviously, isn't it, all governments have intelligence and all governments keep that o information secret. hy should i think -- i accept from you that you're in a better bits should e what be public? judge that fit to than the heads of the security services who say al qaeda and helped britain's enemies. be better -- g to it's a broader debate than just security. to live in,y i want that's going to be used as a trump card that says, i'm sorry, publish anything else because national security is going to trample it. that. not suggesting what i want to know is when they

people in the experts in the field all the time, serving the ountry, trying to protect us all saying this shouldn't be in the public domain, how can you you and the colleagues that you consulted make a er able to judgment on that. you do because you went ahead and published it. well, the tall story. let's talk about the tor story. -- members of the committee who aren't familiar of this, is of communicating an encrypted form. it was built by the u.s. navy. to this day by the state department. why is it funded by the state department? funded so dissidents in horrible countries can communicate safely. thing.a good it's also used by pedophiles. thing. a bad we publish the story after talking to the white house for say this is a network that still seems to be safe to use, is that a good

thing or a bad thing? its's good for dissidents and pedophiles. we use our judgment and come earlier -- there's nothing that the guardian published that was not on the -- thingse are two separate here. the hing to report on extent of surveillance and say this information is being gutted facts that this is happening. that's one thing. i think it's suddenly very then, you know, ransmit the information in a risky way, in an insecure way, put us at risk. personnel.security i think we should see very different things on that. i'm not worried if, you know, if americans are embarrassed reporting thee -- data is fine. but transmitting the information it.the way you manage >> i took your question -- the

the judgment of the security services. you're making a different point now. the l i can say is that material -- we can talk endlessly about how the material the help it, any time material has leaked has been from the nsa, not from the you understand that point? names would some of the redacted. not clear why -- i'm not clear some of the names and some information was redacted and some of it wasn't. is it because you didn't know in order for 58,000 files before they were sent? > the redaction was of any documents that we published that it.t have had a name on we have not used any names. o redaction, i'm talking about publishments here. >> stuff that's transmitting. we did -- some cleaning up, but we did not clean up every --

every one of the 58,000. --what redactions were done >> i couldn't know. >> because you -- >> i don't know. i don't know. you don't know what was transmitted really, do you? you don't know. mean when you got around to it, you were transporting the stuff, the encrypted. but paid for the pocket and the to unencrypt them, that doesn't strike me as being of looking t of way after secure information. >> that's not -- >> it's a matter of legitimate concern. >> it's not quite right. >> done in the telegraph. >> if you read the witness statement, it's not quite right. pass t talks about is the word to one file which is a kind of index to other files. if you read mr. robbins, 11 material is e

seized, it's apparent that the encryption on the files broken es have not been by gchq -- the supplementary sometime later in which the case they make for retaining the files is that the olice couldn't break the files of the kind of encryption that was being used. >> was any information taken home from the guardian by any of your staff. no. >> in the documentary about ikileaks, james paul, he said he took a copy of the encrypted documents to his house. but in this case, you're certain it didn't happen. >> yes, the material was held mean, we -- we're not blind to the sensitivity of material. we went to more precautions over his material than any other story we've ever had. >> final question. >> this is not being carried around in that way. >> okay.

any other question. is that one story? story or e tor anything else? >> related to dinas. that falls story under political embarrassment national security and the leaders of the g-20 meeting. >> thank you. >> in your lecture in november 2011, you said the number of riteria, five tests, journalists must follow if hey're going to be involved in the behavior and the guardian is commended by this committee and others. think what you have done meets the five tests in regards sufficient calls, the methods used that that is proper and it's the recent prospect of success. met this test?

>> we were discussing that this week. they're very good tests. it's versus good authority. it's proportionalty. 1%, not all of it. and no-fishing expeditions. the reporters, in the beginning of this, we're not using this as the brand securities. there's stuff in there like iraq goingghanistan, we're not to look at it. not what they were doing when he wants the responsible journalists to go through the materials. tests. bid the top >> are you in touch with mr. snowden? >> no. someone else is on your behalf. > not since mr. greenwald left the guardian, i have no contact. >> we have one question, we have commissioner coming in. i have the commissioner arise

reason.other i did suspect that it's going to happen. a session on counterterrorism. r. harper first, then mr. ellis, then mr. willing. >> there are many interesting things. i'd be grateful how we can result this fundamental the security services will tend to trust us, this is a problem but we can't prove it to you. there is simply no way to explore that properly. issue that the terrorism, like pedophiles as my is eague said earlier, clearly something that you can't do anything to stop it. for is often used to argue further legislation. what is the solution to this problem? we avoid being in this constant position where security say things l just and there's no way to accomplish it? we need to have those eventually side, how can we break that down? >> well, okay.

briefly as possible -- this is clearly at the heart of it. and in the real world, this is going to come back to parliament and parliament is going to congress -- all countries with security services are going to work out -- going to have to work out this of oversight. s seem to me mittee talent the political and the society that you represent the public interest of things that are not purely security. question -- >> your journalist said in the took ntary pool that he top secret encrypted documents back to his flat as mr. austin pointed out to you. and in an on-line interview with miranda, one david of the staff was due to carrying stolen secret files, got cold and they were sent via federal express. did you know that federal

of carriage tions include in section 8, subsection 16 that would be an unauthorized do.ng to thatnk you said to mr. rex you had used federal express. my question to you, quite all that in ing mind do you not accept that you very least been woefully irresponsible with secret information and thereby lives. >> the question is about wikileaks, not about this story all. it's got nothing to do with this story. premise.n't accept your >> thank you. >> can we clarify the situation -- where go from here the guardian goes from here. the rime minister said in house, some describe it as intimidation. word one would like. will the guardian continue to despite all of that, revelations from snowden, would

ou consider have been in the public domain? working slowly and rep responsibly with hundreds of journalists in the world. we're going to continue to them.t we're not going to be put off by intimidation nor are we going to recklessly. >> glad to hear that. >> mr. flynn has the final? > what question do you think the committee should ask the head of mi-5, bearing in mind he notice of ced questions? > well, i think the question that mr. hallpert raises in the end is the crucial one. i've met most of the heads of serious and i know that people who think about these thing but equally, it's some elements of intelligence services, not

necessarily like ours, have been of control literally. they were not in the control of people who should have known about it. state of angerous affairs. and if it's true of america, it's to some extent true here because the relationship between gchq.nd so i think the question for the one that mr.is the halpert raised which is what is in which this can be me meaningfully overseen with people who have understanding of technology, adequately resourced, and understand the broader questions and broader public interests of civil are engaged by these questions. >> you're quite satisfied those by protect your country gathering information and dealing with terrorist like al qaeda, al shebab and other organizations undermined by what you have done and those who

beds tonightin our could not be undermined at all by the guardian. >> the biggest threat is when a situation where there are people inside the organizations who are so troubled by what they see and troubled by the relationship between the legality of what's can on and what engineers now do. what president obama now said what they can do as opposed to do.t they should as long as they have people most -- hundreds of thousands of eople who are so troubled they're going to leak these massive data bases to generate the public debate that the resident says is necessary, then you have no security. and president clinton talked the other day about we're in danger a world where there's no privacy and no security. that's a bad situation for everyone. i think there's material conversations to be had as a result of what's been published. very much.u you've been clear and open in your evidence. thank you. rder, could i have the commissioner, please?

>> tomorrow, british prime minister david cameron and house of common sense will offer tributes to nelson mandela who died on age of 95. the live coverage from parliament 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. next, we talk to a capitol hill about's ahead at this week for congress. >> ginger gibson, a reporter for politico. thanks for coming on today. congress is getting readdy to wind up the year. expected to gavel out friday 13 for the holiday recess. what's on the list of items

finish up ing to before they leave for the holidays. >> one of the biggest things to come next week is a possible deal on the budget. appeararie and paul ryan to be nearing an agreement on spending levels for the next year and the year after that the sequester as ell as some other revenue increases that aren't new taxes. conference report could come out we would t week, and see discussions on both floors about moving forward on spending bills, potentially a cr to get them over the last little bit to government shutdown. >> the leader pelosi is insisting that unemployment of fits need to be a part the discussion. why is that? that's a be an item hurdle for them to get the deal done. >> the extension which allows benefits for ive 18 months expires the week after christmas. pelosi along with several democrats want to see that

extended another year. it's not being include in a budget deal. she's pressing hard for it to be as a special piece of legislation. speaker boehner left the door open. he's open to having another extension. at this point, they haven't figured out how it's going get done. >> what happens if you haven't reached a budget agreement before the break? > no budget agreement before the break, there's no real repercussions immediately. the government stays open. functioning. they have about another month until january 15 to find some way to keep government funded beyond that deadline. we'll likely to see negotiations bipartisan groups as well as leadership and maybe even the white house stepping in. know they've been working on the farm bill. can we expect to see votes on next week? >> unlikely they've hit snags. come back together. could be a race between the farm bill and budget committee, conference committees, trying to get something done. but a deal is going to take a lot of bringing people together

to try to f working find the votes necessary to pass it and whether or not they vote on that next week is still unclear. >> just before the thanksgiving break, the senate was working on the defense authorization bill. how were those negotiations going? >> they came to an abrupt stop thanksgiving. they thought they were going to vote on that in a senate. they did not. they will announce on monday strategy for the the legislation. doesn't seem like it will happen before the christmas break. drag to the new year. something they're negotiating in he senate on both sides to get a vote on. >> with the filibuster rules now changed because of the nuclear ption, what judicial nominations could we expect to see in the senate before the holiday break? >> three nominees to the d.c. circuit court. powerful courts in the country because it deals with disputes between the legislative branch. three of the nominees expect to

move through the senate. harry reed said they'll bring that for a vote. the filibuster rules have been they don't require 60 votes, likely to move quickly through the beginning of the senate. the >> ginger gibson, congressional reporter for politico. thank ls for joining us. thanks for having me. david , "q&a" with finkle. then british deputy prime inister nick clegg taking questions from the members of the house of common sense. a chance to see the editor of guardian" testify before the british home affairs publishing the edward snowden intelligence leaks. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington complektly to you, putting you congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and gavel-to-gavelte coverage of the u.s. house all public service of private industry. we're c-span created by the

years ago dustry 43 and funded by the local cable and satellite provider. now you can watch it in hd. > david finkel, at what point did you decide to call this book, "thank you for your service"? the game me late in after i turn in the manuscript and we were searching around for title. i had another one in mind which was the suicide room. mentioned that to the publisher, she said that is just terrific title. are you trying to put